G. Sills

The plaintiff sought damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing that his employment with the defendant municipality was permanent and indefinite despite being hired under a contract with an expected duration of two years.

The defendant maintained that the plaintiff was employed under a fixed-term contract that was extended four times before expiring.

The court found no ambiguity in the employment agreement or the extension notices, concluding that the plaintiff was employed under a fixed-term contract.

As the contract simply expired, there was no wrongful dismissal, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced an action which was subsequently discontinued following an email exchange between counsel.

The defendant then brought a motion under Rule 23.05(1) for costs of the discontinued action, arguing the discontinuance was unilateral.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the email correspondence constituted a binding settlement agreement that included the discontinuance of the action but did not include any term for the payment of costs.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs for successfully opposing the motion.